Wednesday, March 21, 2012

A shambles

Is there any truth to the rumour that jurors failed to convict Tame Iti and his co-defendants on the charge of involvement in an "organised" criminal group because what they saw of their group looked far from organised?

In any case, after the farcical arrests and trial it's now clear that the hastily drawn up Suppression of Terrorism Act under which the Urewera 20161514 4 were seized and charged is as great a shambles as Iti's rabble, and perhaps an even greater threat to our individual security.

3 Comments:

I thought that the Libz supports the notion of the freedom to do whatever you wanted to do in your private property as long as you don't tremble up on others rights? They were playing war games in their own land. Does the Libz now support the notion that doing such activities in your private land as a violation of others rights? Crikey, the Libz are a bunch of incoherent fucktards.

You may properly by right do anything you wish on your property,just so long as you don't infringe the rights of others.

Such an infringement might, for example, be building a machine gun nest on your boundary and pointing its contents at your neighbour; or collecting a stockpile of nuclear weapons while telling all-comers your neighbours should be wiped off the map; or holding weapons training drills on your land while boasting about killing the Prime Minister.

Such things would constitute an objective threat, and are rightly the subject of legal or defensive action.

In this case however the objective threat was unproven--partly because of pathetic, poorly written law, and partly because (fortunately) the defendants were little more than a disorganised rabble.

Tip Jar

In America, they tip. In NZ, we shout beer. If you like the service here at Not PC, drop a tip in the tip jar and you can do both.

Comments on this post

A shambles
a good dismissal,and thoroughly deserved, the idiot Crown.My God I googled you up on UnPC and met a mad woman, it was terrible
I thought that the Libz supports the notion of the freedom to do whatever you wanted to do in your private property as long as you don't tremble up on others rights? They were playing war games in their own land. Does the Libz now support the notion that doing such activities in your private land as a violation of others rights? Crikey, the Libz are a bunch of incoherent fucktards.
You may properly by right do anything you wish on your property,just so long as you don't infringe the rights of others.

Such an infringement might, for example, be building a machine gun nest on your boundary and pointing its contents at your neighbour; or collecting a stockpile of nuclear weapons while telling all-comers your neighbours should be wiped off the map; or holding weapons training drills on your land while boasting about killing the Prime Minister.

Such things would constitute an objective threat, and are rightly the subject of legal or defensive action.

In this case however the objective threat was unproven--partly because of pathetic, poorly written law, and partly because (fortunately) the defendants were little more than a disorganised rabble.